Palomar Airport: The Carlsbad General Plan EIR Problems, Part II, Blog 88

Last week, this blog listed several comments I sent to Carlsbad on June 19 as to Carlsbad’s draft 2014 General Plan (GP) EIR.  Today, lists more EIR comments.

1.     “The GP-EIR Analysis Method  does not Comply with CEQA.   The GP-EIR says GP project impacts will significantly but unavoidably worsen regional air and traffic congestion and such impacts can not be cut below a level of significance.  The GP-EIR says that GP projects are not “cumulatively considerable” because such impacts comprise a small part of the problems. 

In essence, the GP-EIR adopts the “ratio” test California courts have rejected.   The proper analysis is: (i) what added air quality problems will GP projects cause, (ii) what feasible mitigation measures will reduce impacts, even though not below a level of significance, (iii) will the mitigation measures be enforceable, and (iv) what harm do such air quality problems cause when the harm occurs in an air quality nonattainment area? 

Stated differently, CEQA requires the public be informed of project harms even if not all harms will be mitigated.  As an example, one San Diego regional non attainment pollutant is PM2.5s.  Think absurdly small dust particles (PM = particulate matter) that penetrate the lungs and can cause breathing problems, especially for the elderly, and cancers.

Under the Carlsbad GP-EIR approach, it does not matter whether PM2.5 levels reach the statutory limit  of “X” and 10,000 deaths result or twice the statutory limit  (“2X) and 30,000 deaths result. [N.B. the foregoing numbers only illustrate the issue and are hypothetical - - because the Carlsbad EIR provides no helpful information on the health effects of PM10s.] The GP-EIR position in essence is: If we can’t reduce emissions below the limit “X,” we don’t need to worry how much the emissions are above X.  California law differs.

The GP-EIR air quality analysis and other GP-EIR analyses are fatally defective for other reasons also.  For example, Carlsbad asserts that it need not look closely at various air quality (and other environmental issues) because other agencies such as AQMD or the Regional Water Board must separately evaluate future projects.  Again, the California courts reject this approach.  CEQA requires lead agencies to prepare their own independent analysis that cannot be deferred only until specific projects are proposed.  

2.     The GP-EIR Provides No Real Discussion of How to Mitigate the Serious Erosion of Traffic Levels of Service to Almost Bumper to Bumper on Some Road Segments.  The GP-EIR recognizes that even without Palomar Airport expansion, the traffic on Palomar Airport Blvd and El Camino Real will not meet Carlsbad Levels of Service [LOS] and the GP proposes no real solution.  The GP ignores the further LOS deterioration that would occur from significant Palomar passenger service increases.

3.     Palomar Noise Generation.  The GP-EIR inadequately discusses Palomar noise issues.  The GP-EIR does not (a) explain how “noise averaging” methods  artificially reduce aircraft noises, (b) disclose the substantial difference in noise that corporate jets create when displacing smaller planes, (c) explain that the “Fly Friendly” program is voluntary and has no effective enforcement mechanism, (d) ignores the noise impacts of 500,000 to 900,000 added vehicles on the road if Palomar begins new air carrier service, and (e) ignores night time flight noise issues resulting from long distance Palomar flights.”

The comment letter sent to Carlsbad discusses the above issues in much more detail.